Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by bigdogtx, Aug 19, 2009.
doda,,,,that would assume that hussein and the dems care about what the Constitution says!!!!
So uhm, how is this unconstitutional? Personally, I believe it is a Constitutional right to have healthcare under both the 1st and 14th Amendments. Granted, it shouldn't be in the form that the Democrats are trying to pass right now, something still needs to be done. Though I will bite, how is healthcare unconstitutional? Show me the Amendment and Clause.
Wait...what did you say????
Sorry no habla' non-english.
Except when you bring in the Supremacy Clause in which the Fed is the "Supreme Law of the Land." Some states already have state-issued healthcare, such as Massachusetts which, granted is extremely liberal, but they have certainly had success with their program.
Success bankrupting their state, you mean (you need to read up on that, Trapps...)
Trappy you libs are only guarantreed two things in this life and that is taxes and death. Quit with the womb to tomb freebie handout chit. Go get a job and support yourself and family members. Then and only then will you understand capitolism.
EE, yes the 14th Amendment, check under the Equal Protection Clause.
And yeah the First Amendment thing was wrong, I meant to reference the Declaration, specifically the unalienable rights of man. I believe that today, that applies to access to quality healthcare, and under the 14th Amendment it should apply to all.
"Well, OK, maybe I didn't bother to get the numbers right on those amendments...but you know what I meant, so I still think I'm right."
Yeah buzz, I made a mistake. I know that has never happened to you before, so I hope you can forgive me.
"So uhm, how is this unconstitutional? Personally, I believe it is a Constitutional right to have healthcare under both the 1st and 14th Amendments. Granted, it shouldn't be in the form that the Democrats are trying to pass right now, something still needs to be done. Though I will bite, how is healthcare unconstitutional? Show me the Amendment and Clause. -Trappy "
Sorry Trappy, but once again you are wrong. You really should take a course in constitutional law. The governments involvement in healthcare (and in many other areas they have intruded on the past 100 years) is unconstitutional because the Constitution very specifically spells out what the federal government is authorized and allowed to do, and health care is not one of those items. Further amplifying this is the 10th amendment which specifically states that any area and/or powers "not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people" And as I just pointed out, the Constitution does not specifically grant or authorize or allow the federal government power over or in healthcare; therefore healthcare is by the language of the Constitution, reserved to "the states or the people."
The federal government usually tries to excuse its siezures of unconstitutional power and authoritiy by claiming that it some how involves the power to "regulate insterstate commerce" that it was granted under the Constitution, but such relationship is mostly tenuous at best. In the case of healthcare, it is non-existent, and in the 1000 page plus bill the house committee passed, they don't even bother to cite this spurious relationship any more since even they could not come up with an acceptable or even understandable rationale for healthcare as interstate commerce.
P.S. doda: Thats Judge Napolitano, a retired federal judge, and a Constitutional scholar.
Jim, which is exactly why the Constitution was written to be able to adapt to the times. As I recall, there were no large operation drug cartels, excuse me, prescription drugs, privatized health care, so how could one be expected to know about the current day problems 250 years in the future? Just how the Constitution didn't provide for anything related to jet travel, the federal government took control of that issue, as it should. If there is health care dealt with specifically by the states, and each state has a different program, what happens when you are on vacation in New York, but live in New Mexico, and are injured during your vacation and require medical help. Are you able to get it? Health care is one of those things that should not be dealt with individually by the states, rather the federal government as a whole.
Doesn't the Constitution say something about life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness ?
How does taking my money and giving it to someone else ( in the form of taxation for universal healthcare including illegal aliens ) consitute you having to PURSUE your happiness ?
Based on the assumption the Constitution is the touchstone for universal healthcare, i then think it should also apply to providing me with food, housing, and even my recreational pursuits !
Oh, i forgot. We can already get the food and housing. Now, if I could just work in the recreational part.
Trappy, the only goods and services you have a right to, are the ones you earn and pay for, in a mutually non-coercive transaction with another person.
Can you force a nurse to care for you without being paid?
Can you force a Doctor to treat you without payment? To force him to work for free? To make him, in essence, a slave?
Because that's what you're asserting, when you say healthcare is a right - that the men and women who provide it, through the work of their bodies and minds, have no right to be paid for that work. If they do have a right to demand payment, then healthcare is not a right - it's a commodity to be purchased. There's simply no way around it.
And putting Constitutional issues aside - what happens when there aren't enough doctors, because people don't want to spend a decade in medical school only to find the Government's gun placed against their head once they start practicing? Because that's the reason why Canada doesn't have enough doctors, you know.
I know you don't like people calling you names...but if you make idiotic arguments, then you're an idiot.
Uhm actually, nowhere in the entire Constitution did it ever say that.
But I'll bite anyways. Regarding your pursuit of happiness comment, did you know that nations with nationalized healthcare have MUCH higher ratings as far as happiness goes than the United States? Denmark has the happiest people by the way, closely followed by Finland and the Netherlands. Canada and New Zealand were in the Top 10, but the US is not. What do all those countries have in common?! Higher taxes! Clearly, happiness is NOT based on having more money and lower taxes.
trappy,,,you smoking something,,,,just how does the 1st amendment apply????
Here is what the First Amendment says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ”
Show us conservatives how your liberal mind gets health care from this one???
the 14th states:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Now WHERE does the 14th get healthcare from???
You and your little lib buddies just MAKE UP what ever you think and have NO IDEA what is really in the Constitution. You really need to try to pay more attention in school,,,,or is this what is being taught????
Oh, and would you PLEASE, PLEASE show HOW Mass. has been successful in their health care program???? At what cost???
Trappy, I don't know about your daddy's health insurance on you, but my insurance card has a suitcase icon on it meaning I am covered in all of Obama's 56 states.
EE, simple. Lack of sleep, juggling of plenty of AP Classes, work, women, social life, and etc. tend to lead to a few slip-ups here and there. But I made a mistake, and that's that.
bigdog, it is a stretch, yes. But it makes logical sense if you wanted to apply healthcare to that. I know it doesn't stand as an argument in the courts, but it certainly agrees with the morals and foundation that this country was founded on.
Oh, EE see now you must be confusing me with amboy. he thought that the Constitution mentioned "the pursuit of happiness." After your blues comment, it has clearly been shown that your intelligence is greatly decreasing.
Hill Topper, I am not in Cook County, nor Crook County, but as you said they are one in the same.
That's very true, but my father did tell me that he does not mind giving some of his money to help another man, or country out. He sat me down, and had a serious talk with me about how we ARE our brother's keeper as Christians, and Americans. Keep in mind, he voted for McCain (finally got it out of him). And yes, I am old enough to drive. In fact, I will be old enough to vote in September.
Trappy: Once again, you really should take a course in the Constitution and Constitutional Law. The Constitution had one great over-riding purpose in creating the then United States. That was to limit and restrict the federal government. The overarching fear of the founding fathers was always that, while some central government was a necessary evil, by its very nature a central government would become too big, too bloated, and in the end, tyrannical (much like what they had spent eight years fighting to abolish). Thus they wrote the Constitution to restrict the federal government and do their best to ensure the states and the people would always have the greatest role and authority. In the constitutional course, they would make you read the Federalist Papers where greats like Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and others spelled out this reasoning and their concerns and why they wrote the Constitution as they did. They fully understood that the world would change, but they wanted to ensure as far as humanly possible, that the federal government could not use such change as an excuse to grab more and more power over the next centuries. Unfortunately, we the people, have let the federal government do just that. There is, by the way, a vast difference between "regulating" (such as regulating interstate air or other travel, commerce, and all those other things) and "controlling" such activity. I really do wish you and others would quit simply echoing libtard "talking points" and start actually reading, studying history, studying the Constitution, and actually thinking for yourselves rather than just spouting leftist garbage.
Separate names with a comma.